Re: we have motive (survival) means (evolution) and opportunity (proximity)
vaporwave writes:
So what.. for argument's sake let's say you find "cross-pollinated" violations, it's still true that designed traits tend to fall into nested hierarchies, especially models that are based off small variations of a basic design.
I call Bullshit!. Either you support this claim or admit that you have no such evidence.
Re: we have motive (survival) means (evolution) and opportunity (proximity)
vaporwave writes:
Another invocation of the hypothetical 'random-creature-generator' - (If not evolution, then we should expect the pattern of life to look like spaghetti thrown against the wall)
If that's the bizarre comparison you need to draw to make common ancestry seem more likely, then have at it.
It isn't hypothetical. Organisms designed by humans do just that. We constantly violate a nested hierarchy when we design organisms.
You still haven't come up with a single reason as to why we see a nested hierarchy, out of the octillion to octillionth power other possible patterns that a designer could produce.
™ Version 4.0 Beta
